662.001/6–1252: Telegram
No. 111
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom
(Gifford)
to the Department of State1
5677. I saw Eden this afternoon and presented your views as expressed in Deptel 65222 on Brit-Fr position on reply to latest Sov note. He expressed regret at difficulties which he had apparently caused, and went on to say that he had, of course, taken a very different position than that originally expressed by the Fr, adding that the Fr had just informed him they were now in full agrmt modification of Fr draft which he had proposed (Paris tel 7738, June 113). He said that his thought had merely been that with respect to an impartial investigation of conditions in Ger we shld say in substance “since you are not prepared to write about it, we are prepared to talk about it.”
After some discussion he suggested that fourth and fifth sentences Brit draft of last para Fr text (Paris tel 7738) might be changed to read somewhat along the fol lines:
“In order to avoid further delay, Fr Govt, in concert with HMG and US Govt, are prepared to take part in early mtg of reps of four govts to discuss:
“1. How to set up an impartial commission to investigate conditions to enable free elections to be held throughout Ger; 2. The rest of the program for the formation of an all-Ger Govt contained in [Page 266] final para of Fr Govt’s note of May 13, provided the Sov Govt will make clear that it is in favor of free elections and the participation of a free all-Ger Govt in the treaty negots.”
Adenauer’s comments as reported in Bonn tel 3317 of June 11,4 were also discussed, and Eden thought that if our reply were to insist on Sov answers to all the questions we posed on the second note before we wld agree to a four power mtg, it wld probably create a gen impression which wld be detrimental to our interests. When the possibility of the three HICOMs discussing proposals with Adenauer was mentioned, he said that he saw no objection. He added that he personally felt quite sure that Adenauer wld find his proposal acceptable if it included the modification suggested above.
He agreed with Dept’s view expressed in penultimate sentence Deptel 6543 June 11.5
He ended by saying that the Fr had expressed the hope, with which he heartily agreed, that this matter can be settled before Secy’s arrival in London and need not be included in agenda discussions of three FonMins.6
At no time during the discussion did he give any indication of a disposition to recede from the view that we shld drop our insistence on completion of impartial investigation before quadripartite mtg and agree to include the method of holding such an investigation in the agenda of such a mtg. But I believe his suggestion in para 2 above indicates a willingness to strengthen note in other respects so long as it makes the gesture of offering to include impartial investigation in agenda of quadripartite meeting in order to avoid further delay.
- Repeated to Paris, Bonn, and Moscow.↩
- Supra.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 109.↩
- In telegram 3317 Reber reported that Chancellor Adenauer was not opposed in principle to a four-power meeting if adequate preparations were made in advance, but he was strongly opposed to a four-power meeting merely for the sake of demonstrating Allied willingness to talk about German unity, which he believed would be fatal to the prospects of ratifying the contractual agreements and the EDC Treaty. (762.00/6–1152)↩
- Telegram 6543 informed Gifford that subject to the resolution of the question of a four-power meeting the points raised in the French draft note were not considered to raise any difficulties. The penultimate sentence of this telegram stated that the Department of State saw merit, in particular, in pointing out the inconsistency of the measures which the Soviet Union had taken to isolate East Germany with Soviet professions in favor of unification. (662A.00/6–952)↩
- Secretary Acheson traveled to London, Berlin, Vienna, and Rio in June and July.↩